14th Amendment Of Immigration Analysis

As a reminder, the former US Congress and Framers stated that the only desire to stay in the country and become citizen were necessary to start the process. However, and due to the results already known, many of those then-authorized workers now are undocumented because they could not change their immigration status to another that allow them stay longer and permanently. The Fourteenth Amendment establishes that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. However, it is not of my interest to speak at detail of citizenship by rights or citizenship by status. For now I will speak regarding the facts of how an undocumented immigrant can change his immigration …show more content…
It is due to the paragraph mention birth and being subject to jurisdiction. As a part of his reasoning regarding “subject to jurisdiction” term, Eastman presents three sources; first, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who is introduced here as the key figure of the amendment, stated that subject to jurisdiction means a complete jurisdiction, and not owing allegiance to anybody else. Second, Senator Jacob Howard, who stated that there must be “a full and complete jurisdiction” that “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”, and third, Supreme Court ruling in Slaughter House cases “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .” Eastman quoting Thomas Cooley of his treaties of Constitutional law “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government .” Thus, in order to become a US citizen any person born or naturalized must be subject to the US jurisdiction by the time of his application. It is my opinion that the same assessment must be applied for residency regardless of applicant’s current …show more content…
Coxe’s Lessee case stating that: “The defendant, Daniel Coxe, found his allegiance and eligibility for US citizenship brought into doubt by virtue of the fact that he had been a loyalist during the Revolutionary War .” The Court stated that since the defendant decided to settle down in the state of New Jersey, he consent in losing any string to the British Crown: “Daniel Coxe lost his right of election to abandon the American cause, and to adhere to his allegiance to the King of Great Britain; because he remained in the state of New-Jersey; not only after she had declared herself a sovereign state, but after she had passed laws by which she pronounced him to be a member of, and in allegiance to the new